Saturday, 18 November 2017

How much is worth paying

So, how much should we pay?What is the price of the Danegeld ?Theresa May is edging towards her final figure of £30bn over 5 years. £6bn a year until exit and, some £1-2bn for whatever deal the Uk has ongoing.Mr Barnier is edging towards £50b. £10bn a year for 5 yearsDoes either really matter? The cost of bailing out the UK banks in 2008 was £850bn.HS2 is currently set for £56bn. And will cost much more than that by the time its done.Just putting in smart motorway signs at J3 of the M4 cost £1 billion.Its small beer. Really, it is.

Like an unhinged spouse whatever we pay in the end will be worth it just to be rid of them.So although the EU is deliberately trying to make the UK appear weak and defeated. That it is encouraging, even ordering, its Irish member to kick off inconveniently and blaming the UK for the EU's failings to move talks along like grown ups.Whatever we pay is worth it isn't it?Because the alternative is to go down the same irrational, destructive, bitter route that the EU wants to pursue. Today they are threatening to withhold our £5bn rebate. We could match, like for like. And then go Bunny Boiler loco as well.Threaten to -

- Cease all EU payments immediately- Lower corporation tax to 2%- Reduce VAT to 10% - Consider our position in Nato- Say that the divorce bill is a nonsense and our payments are zero- Take EU citizens rights off the table. Say this will be the very last, not the first item on any agenda.- Explain that the Irish border will be a yellow line on the road. If the EU want anything more, they can build it all, and impose it all, on their side.- Refuse to attend any Brexit meetings until the Irish question is settled to our satisfaction.- Explain we are heading for WTO. And will do nothing except possibly examine any proposals the EU has for something different. But every day will be a day towards WTO and our own economic survival. And so on. £50 bn to avoid all the grief?Worth it?

But if we're out of the EU, why do we need to discuss 'EU citizens' rights' with 'the EU'. As I understand it, immigration policy is not an EU competence, but a matter for member states. Countries outside of the EU are free to have different visa rules for UK citizens than Romanian citizens aren't they?

So why don't we just cut to the chase and start discussing the post-brexit rights of Poles in the UK with Poland? Or maybe we are, who knows.

How much would I pay? I dunno, even a very big figure sounds like a very small figure if you spread it out over enough years. Maybe we should have thought of it more like a redundancy payment rather than a divorce settlement and just bitten their hand off at £100bn.

We were going to be paying in a net 10-15bn annually anyway, so anything less than that for a fixed period is a win. I've always said we'd pay to leave, because they want our money and we want trade to stay relatively unharmed. I don't have a problem with it, its only money at the end of the day, our freedom is worth it.

I don't think it's so much the amount as the principle. They've tested is like crap for 40 years, sometimes overtly and many time behind the scenes. Now we've told them we've had enough, their true nature is revealing itself; nasty, vindictive and venal. We owe them nothing, they owe us much, not least what we've paid in defence spending over the lifetime of this horrible entity, with never so much as a thank you.

No, they deserve nothing, they should get nothing. And our lot should put the traitorous Civil Service in its place, exert their power as the voice of the people and tell the likes of Tusk, Verhofstadt and the Drunk that any more belligerence on their part will be interpreted as an act of aggression against us, a sovereign state.

I think we should definitely look to see if there is a legal case to stop EU payments. EU treaties say that they should try to have friendly relations with neighbouring countries, which they are not doing.I would also say that in case of any hostile action we would not be able to defend Eastern Europe from Putin - and that might give him ideas, but not our problem.

£50 billion over 5 years is small beer in the overall scale of government spending and it's nothing compared to what the loss of international trade in a no-deal scenario would cost us. So, if £50 billion will make the problem go away then we should agree to it and move on to more important things. It's such a simple issue that it should have been resolved in the first week of negotiations.

What's more, the demand for a final payment is based on the obligations that the British government entered into by signing the various treaties that defined the structure of the EU and its predecessors, the EEC and the Common Market. If we just walk away without paying anything we will seriously damage Britain's reputation as a country that can be trusted to honour the agreements it signs up to, and that reputation is worth a lot more than £50 billion.

Following your analogy, this is one of those divorces where both parties still have to live together and there is one bathroom.Yes, it is all sooooo tempting to turn round and be clear that following the rules you don't have to pay anything, but they don't need to give you access to the kitchen or toilet.So you pay.

Why pay anything E-K? Because a no-deal scenario would do considerable damage to the British economy and leave a bitterly divided society. It would be very painful for Britain so we should try very hard to avoid it. But getting a deal means getting past the "phase one" issues of the financial settlement, the rights of EU citizens and the Irish border. The first one is easy to resolve, the second one isn't too difficult and the third one is hard because of the politics of Northern Ireland. Fighting to the bitter end over the financial settlement means that we never even start negotiating the trade relationships which are actually important to our future because we're stuck on something trivial and easily resolved and that is grossly, stupidly irresponsible.

Ask for a justified breakdown of what the EU wants and why they should have it, together with the audited accounts of the EU covering the last 5 years. Considering the EU accounts have never been signed off in the time it has existed, that may cause a few bumholes to twitch.

If there is no deal, surely the issue of financial obligations would be referred to the appropriate court for a resolution. Ironically it would be the ECJ as the UK was part of the EU as they would jurisdiction over the matter.

Alternative it could be heard in UK courts under EU law as a compromise.

But then what is the outcome, having been assessed by the courts, to be over £50bn, we would pay - eventually as the Iranians have found out recently.

Since we are supposedly a country holding to the rule of law, throw it into the courts.